Great Canadian Skyline Thread II - Page 92

Nouvellecosse · #**1821** Posted **Sep 19, 2016, 3:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Because different pockets of density and built form in a community is far more interesting.

You can have that perfectly well while maintaining a baseline level of scale. It's like saying you want to eliminate microscopic and stick to macroscopic, and having people complain about the lack of variation when the range captures everything from a tick to a whale.

The range of density, development patterns, and architecture I'm discussing here also vary significantly. Think of Paris, inner Brooklyn, Back Bay, and Manhattan. No shortage of options. The only thing they generally have in common is a greater level of intensification that semi-detached houses with large setbacks.

Quote:

The city is a sprawling mass of communities and people don't tend to move around that much between them if they don't have to. What happens in Don Mills has no impact on the downtown area.

But we don't need to bring the experience of the entire city to every part of the city. If taken to the extreme, there'd be little reason for people to move around very much because everywhere they went would have the same basic elements of where they already are.

There's no reason people can't settle in an area with the unique traits they find most appealing, and visit somewhere else and experience something different from time to time. The ability to travel to a different area and immerse ones self in something strikingly different is more interesting to me.

Quote:

The width of the asphalt has a greater impact on the look of a street than whether or not a residential street is built to the sidewalk.

I'm afraid that's more your perception than objective fact. For me, the street width definitely makes a difference, but the scale of the buildings and how they interface with the street makes an equal or greater difference. Just a matter of perception I suppose.

Quote:

I like having room for trees to grow. It doesn't matter if its between the roadbed and sidewalk or the houses and sidewalk. There's enough hard concrete surfaces in Toronto. These houses can pack a ton of population density with the ability to be converted to apartments and infill in the rear.

Agreed 100% on the trees. I've seen attractive examples of both a space between street and sidewalk, as well as houses set back slightly but with the front steps bringing the entrance to the sidewalk. The only thing I'd take issue with is houses set back so far that the front staircase can't even meet the sidewalk, and instead lead to a walkway which leads to the street. Very nice, I'm sure. But not for the core of a city.

Also, I want to be clear, the issue I'm raising aren't about population density; they're about urban design. My original complain was that highrises and highrise nodes seem to be the main way newer North American cities are adding density, so Obviously I realise adding density is possible without the type of urban design I prefer, I just happen to prefer it be done, well, how I prefer. I just find a city more substantial, engaging, iconic, and charismatic that way. Perhaps one could say, "a better vibe".

Nouvellecosse · #**1822** Posted **Sep 19, 2016, 3:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Actually, it might. Their height/density limits have more to do with earthquake safety than NIMBYISM or traffic concerns.

They do have a few areas with even more density, like Shinjuku.

Speaking of NYC, beyond market conditions, there is another reason why there is a lull in density between Lower Manhattan and Midtown: geology. The bedrock of some areas is much closer to the surface and better suited for skyscraper construction.

I find it odd that highrises would be considered an earthquake hazard when steel frame buildings are the safest type structure for earthquakes. Perhaps the regulations were created back when larger buildings were mostly masonry? Or false public perceptions limits the demand.

mistercorporate · #**1823** Posted **Sep 19, 2016, 3:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Are people seriously embarrassed by this angle? It just looks like a big North American city. It looks like Toronto.

It's from a plane way up in the air, those little buildings down there that appear like SFH's are actually multistorey, and the neighbourhoods there are jammed with pedestrians. If this is small, other cities in Canada are puny, no bloody perspective in this thread.

WhipperSnapper · #**1824** Posted **Sep 19, 2016, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You can have that perfectly well while maintaining a baseline level of scale. It's like saying you want to eliminate microscopic and stick to macroscopic, and having people complain about the lack of variation when the range captures everything from a tick to a whale.

The range of density, development patterns, and architecture I'm discussing here also vary significantly. Think of Paris, inner Brooklyn, Back Bay, and Manhattan. No shortage of options. The only thing they generally have in common is a greater level of intensification that semi-detached houses with large setbacks.

But we don't need to bring the experience of the entire city to every part of the city. If taken to the extreme, there'd be little reason for people to move around very much because everywhere they went would have the same basic elements of where they already are.

There's no reason people can't settle in an area with the unique traits they find most appealing, and visit somewhere else and experience something different from time to time. The ability to travel to a different area and immerse ones self in something strikingly different is more interesting to me.

I'm afraid that's more your perception than objective fact. For me, the street width definitely makes a difference, but the scale of the buildings and how they interface with the street makes an equal or greater difference. Just a matter of perception I suppose.

Agreed 100% on the trees. I've seen attractive examples of both a space between street and sidewalk, as well as houses set back slightly but with the front steps bringing the entrance to the sidewalk. The only thing I'd take issue with is houses set back so far that the front staircase can't even meet the sidewalk, and instead lead to a walkway which leads to the street. Very nice, I'm sure. But not for the core of a city.

Also, I want to be clear, the issue I'm raising aren't about population density; they're about urban design. My original complain was that highrises and highrise nodes seem to be the main way newer North American cities are adding density, so Obviously I realise adding density is possible without the type of urban design I prefer, I just happen to prefer it be done, well, how I prefer. I just find a city more substantial, engaging, iconic, and charismatic that way. Perhaps one could say, "a better vibe".

I don't see the relevance of Paris and Manhattan development patterns in comparison to Toronto's development patterns or the preference of one aesthetic to another. There are plenty of rowhouses, flat topped brownstone types that were originally built to the same density as here. They just have bigger backyards.

These are dense neighbourhoods that in no part are a waste of space in downtown context. There is also lots of potential to intensify further and introduce more uses without reinventing the built form.

high rises are built because of the nature of real estate. Everyone is out to make a buck. The only way to curb such a trend is through ultra strict zoning that caps the value of property. No one is paying 50 million for a property that has a binding maximum of 4 FAR.

A colleague of mine purchased a property in downtown Toronto 12+ years ago for $4 million. He went through rezoning to build a 12 storey tower with about 150 units. He never followed through and ended up selling it for over $30 million as neighbouring properties were developed in the meantime . The developer that purchased the property would of gone bankrupt using that zoning.

#**1825** Posted **Sep 19, 2016, 7:17 PM**

Content removed

Beedok · #**1826** Posted **Sep 19, 2016, 8:36 PM**

That's a nice view. Great for storm watching.

koops65 · #**1827** Posted **Sep 19, 2016, 9:29 PM**

Yonge & Eglinton and downtown from Yonge & Sheppard on a hazy afternoon:

[IMG]

upload imagem[/IMG]
Pic by me today.

Nouvellecosse · #**1828** Posted **Sep 19, 2016, 11:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I don't see the relevance of Paris and Manhattan development patterns in comparison to Toronto's development patterns or the preference of one aesthetic to another. There are plenty of rowhouses, flat topped brownstone types that were originally built to the same density as here. They just have bigger backyards.

These are dense neighbourhoods that in no part are a waste of space in downtown context. There is also lots of potential to intensify further and introduce more uses without reinventing the built form.

high rises are built because of the nature of real estate. Everyone is out to make a buck. The only way to curb such a trend is through ultra strict zoning that caps the value of property. No one is paying 50 million for a property that has a binding maximum of 4 FAR.

A colleague of mine purchased a property in downtown Toronto 12+ years ago for $4 million. He went through rezoning to build a 12 storey tower with about 150 units. He never followed through and ended up selling it for over $30 million as neighbouring properties were developed in the meantime . The developer that purchased the property would of gone bankrupt using that zoning.

I mentioned those different places as examples because you seemed to suggest that having more intensely scaled low-rise development dominating large parts of a city limits variety, when this isn't the case. If anything, having large areas of cityscape dominated by low intensity development is more limiting to variety since such development seems to attract higher rates of obstructionist NIMBYs.

But let's be clear here. Nobody is saying low intensity development with set backs is a waste of space or that they cannot offer any density. I simply prefer the function and aesthetics of one type of urban fabric more than another and I'm frustrated that the form I prefer isn't built in large scales in contemporary times like it was in the past. It isn't that I don't think a city can function in forms i find less preferable or that i don't understand why it's happening, it's that I don't like it. There's really nothing complicated about it.

WhipperSnapper · #**1829** Posted **Sep 20, 2016, 12:00 AM**

This about the urban cores, the downtowns of cities, and I'd hardly say Paris has as interesting a built form as Toronto. Low rises may occupy the majority of downtown Toronto but, they don't really define it. Downtown is also a massive area stretching from the Don River to Bathurst and the lake to Davenport. I'd have a very different perspective if downtown Toronto wasn't remotely as big.

I got it and I appreciate your preference to the urban form of lowrises. It's not how Toronto developed though and I don't see the point to redefine these neighbourhoods over working with what is already there. I wouldn't conclude that the prevalence of high rise apartment condos dominating the market will continue unimpeded either. It's within the realm of possibilities of an occurrence that could cause consumers to lose all confidence in the high rise market.